Halfway through Brooklyn
Jess asked me why it had been nominated for Best Picture. We had gone to see The Big Short the night before, and the same question could be
asked of that film. Both films are
entertaining, and both have been expertly made, but neither of them are The Godfather Part II or Braveheart. That being said, I would suggest that films
that achieve the level of greatness are few and far between. I’ll review Brooklyn and The Big Short
for what they are, not what they aren’t.
I lied. Brooklyn is exactly like The Godfather Part II except that it
doesn’t have any gangsters.
The Big Short is
essentially a remake of Braveheart
except that the main characters don’t wear kilts.
I hope that you realize that I am exaggerating; yet please
bear with me while I expand upon my comparisons… Brooklyn
is about the immigrant experience, specifically about a young Irish girl’s
experience in Brooklyn, New York circa 1952.
The Godfather Part II is also
about a young immigrant who is both a product of and a manipulator of this land
of opportunity. While Brooklyn is exactly one horse head short
of being The Godfather Part II, it’s
still a pretty decent film.
The Big Short is
about underdogs who take on the Big Bad Banks, and as everyone knows underdogs
are always good, and banks of any kind (except the Bailey Savings and Loan) are
unabashedly evil. I have exactly two
problems with this movie; the first being that it has no purpose for
existing. Nothing new is revealed,
nothing is very interesting. We all know
that the banks totally screwed us over, then we bailed them out, and now they’re
doing t again. Sure it’s more
complicated than that, but my summary is pretty much all you need to know. The second problem I have is the intention
cutting-short editing; cutting a scene short should have a purpose, not be a
style. So I guess The Big Short has little to do with Braveheart, but maybe I kept you reading.